DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 365 610 SO 023 654

AUTHOR Spina, Stephanie UrsoTITLE Beyond Gender Differences: Traditional and

Alternative Cognitive Strategies.PUB DATE Apr 93NOTE 54p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association (Atlanta,GA, April 12-16, 1993).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) ReportsResearch /Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Behavioral Science Research; *Cognitive Processes;

*Cognitive Style; Cultural Differences; ElementaryEducation; *Epistemology; Feminism; Grade 3;*Learning Strategies

ABSTRACTThis document reports on a study that attempts to

move beyond the polarization of labels and move toward a unity thattranscends distinctions of gender and gender's embeddedness in thelarger culture. While the traditional male model in studies ofcognitive approaches has been challenged by feminist scholars, thereis still some question of the efficacy of current methodology andterminology in addressing and understanding differences in cognitivestyles not necessarily attributable to gender differences. This studyextends feminist terminology and perspective to the more inclusive"alternative." "Alternative" is intended to include allnon-traditional cognitive strategies and to better define them withinthe limits of language. This exploratory study proposes a moreholistic conceptual paradigm that encompasses a variety of learningapproaches. These approaches are measured by a dialectic instrumentthat strives for a more authentic equity in method as well as ininterpretation. The instrument is designed to move beyond thepolarity and structural observational format of traditional discoursecoding categories. The dimensions measured are: (1) process and goaloriented; (2) discovery and didactism; (3) rational and intuitive;(4) separate and related; (5) exclusion or inclusion; (6) breadth andconcentration; (7) support and challenge; (8) personal andimpersonal; (9) self-concern and other concern; (10) inner-directedand outer directed; and (11) listening and speaking. Through theseconceptual lenses, both the content and intent of student discoursein third grade science classes is examined and interpreted. Theinstrument used for the research and charts and graphs illustratingstudy results are included in appendixes. (Author/DK)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

0r.

IE\r;er)

ALzl

Beyond gender differences:Traditional and alternative cognitive strategies

Stephanie Urso Spina

Ade 1phi UniversityGraduate School of Education

Paper pr sented at American Educational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting, April, 1993, Atlanta, Georgia

nrne nano WINO, easa

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice S Eduction& Resenn and improvementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

"Mao document nas been reproduced asiEomved from ine person of moanualionOriginating .1

Ei Mmoi changes have been made In imPrOvee0rOduLlion qualilY

Pools& vow or opinions state° m inndocumen, 00 nor neeesSanly te0,<Sen1 Whoa,OE WI postion Of P0,0

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS EEN ANTED

\

BY1.1

Pr-N

P rCATO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER

Beyond gender differences:Traditional and alternative cognitive strategies

Stephanie Urso Spina, Ade 1phi University

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this investigation is to move beyond the polarization of labels and

move towards a unity that transcends distinctions of gender and gender's embeddednessin the larger culture. While the traditional "male" model in studies of cognitiveapproaches has been challenged by feminist scholars, there is still some questionregarding the efficacy of current methodology and terminology in addressing andunderstanding differences in cognitive styles not necessarily attributable to genderdifferences. This study extends "feminist" terminology and perspective to the moreinclusive "alternative." "Alternative" is intended to include all non-traditional cognitivestrategies and to better define them within the limits of language. This exploratory studyproposes a more holistic conceptual paradigm that encompasses a variety of learningapproaches. Furthermore, this research maintains that recently designed collaborativemodels of instruction, such as the cognitive apprenticeship model (Brown, Collins &Newman, 1989), have been successful because they validate the continuum of learningapt -oaches addressed in this study.

These approaches are measured by a dialectic instrument that strives for a moreauthentic equity in method as well as in interpretation. This instrument, based ontheoretical rationale which overlaps with the work of Peirce, Habermas and Jakobson, isdesigned to move beyond the polarity and structural observational format of traditionaldiscourse coding categories and to capture the wider and more inclusive contextheretofore reserved for thick description alone. The basis for the categories addressed isBelenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule's list of bimodal learning approaches that theyidentified with "women's ways of knowing" (1986). These dimensions have beendeveloped, through a more encompassing "alternative" lens, into eleven conceptualcontinua. The dimensions included are: process and goal oriented; discovery anddidactism; rational and intuitive; separate and related; exclusion or inclusion; breadthand concentration; support and challenge; personal and impersonal; self-concern andother concern; inner-directed and outer directed; listening and speaking. Through theseconceptual lenses, both the content and intent of student discourse in third grade scienceclasses is examined and interpreted.

866 Lincoln Avenue, Baldwin, New York 11510-2804(516)546-2373

r)

1

INTRODUCTION

The issue of equity in the classroom is an ^nduring concern. Researchers have

long examined differences in school -age children's attitudes, behavior and achievement.

However, this work is typically gender-related, comparing attributes of male and female

students within a male framework (Hart, 1992). Traditionally, in education as in

psychology, the disparity between a male dominated culture and women's experience

has been ignored, with male values being treated as "normal" and "natural" for both

sexes (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1991).

Therefore, not only the results, but the research methods themselves reflect a

gender bias, perpetuating these distinctions by unintentionally reinforcing subliminal

barriers to equal access to education. "Equal access" goes beyond equal opportunity to

"the recognition of the female point of view toward experience" (Gilligan, Lyons, Sr

Hanmer, 1989). Carol Gilligan (1982) described two styles of reasoning which, although

varying in the degree to which they are adopted by individuals, she identified as genuer-

related. The traditional style is objective, logical, and justice-based, reflecting a "male"

approach based on separation and competition (Lesko, 1988). The other "the different

voice" that Gilligan identified with women is subjective, intuitive, and relationship-

based.

This research recognizes that there are differences in cognitive strategies that have

been viewed as gender-related and that these differences are embodied in classroom

discourse and reflected in achievement levels. However, since inequality is multi-

dimensional with numerous critical differences including race, class, ability, motivation,

and others, in addition t^ gender (Cookson, 1991), the meaning of male/female

terminology throughout this literature is not so much tied to gender as to theme, as

2

Gilligan (1982) pointed out, and they are not mutually exclusive. It represents a linguistic

distinction between two modes of thought, allowing room for gender to interact with

race, culture and social class.

Several decades ago, Wittgenstein (1965) argued that language in and of itself

creates opposition. Foucault (1977) continued this critique of linguistic categorization,

writing that the subjection of difference is a construction projected onto "the other"

which suppresses differences, delimits rights, and establishes this projection as a

legitimacy. While recognizing, as Habermas did (1973), that an ideal speech situation in

which there is no salient bias, may, in fact, be unattainable, the very searching for one

cannot help but create a more equitable discourse. Thus, this investigator would expand

the "feminist" terminology and perspective to the more inclusive "alternative."

"Alternative" is intended to include all non-traditional cognitive strategies and to

better define them within the limits of language. Derrida (1981) argued that western

thought has been always structured in terms of polarities, and that these polarities are

not independent and equal. The second term is considered the negative, corrupt version

of the first: good vs. evil; presence vs. absence; being vs. nothingness; male vs. female.

Therefore, the terminology is not simply oppositional but is inherently hierarchical.

Recent theoretical views of gender differences have also argued that oppositions

are more linguistically based than biologically based (Chodorow, 1978). Additionally,

the research literature shows that gender-related differences in science, for example, are

present in some countries but not in others (Jones & Wheatley, 1990; Walberg, 1991). This

also suggests that the differences are sociocultural and not biological. While relevant

research on the topic has not been conclusive (Hall & Hoff, 1988), mean differences in

performance between sexes on science tasks are often found (Walberg, 1991).

With this in mind, science was chosen for the focus of this study. Science is one of

the most emphasized academic subjects in schools because, in our technological society,

economic development is linked to the potential contribution of improved science

education (Walberg, 1991). Yet, achievement in science and access to related disciplines

is historically higher for traditional, mainstream, "male" students.

Most studies examining differences in science achievement have dealt with high

school or junior high populations (e.g.; Walberg, 1991; Carlsen, 1990; Morse Sr Handley in

Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985). However, because science is hierarchical, in that basic

concepts need to be mastered before advanced topics can be learned, students without a

thorough knowledge base in the earlier grades are likely to fall behind. (What Walberg,

1991, terms the Matthew Effect.) Thus it is critical to study earlier years of schooling.

Because of this and because, developmentally, the "age of reason" is not reached until 8

years of age (Case, 1986), third grade was selected.

Although disparities between gender-related cognitive strategies exist before

school age (Chodorow 1978; Eccles & Blumenfeld in Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985) and so

are not primarily caused by classroom interaction, the interactions do contribute to

maintaining the disparities (Cazden, 1988). If adults (consciously or not) do not value a

particular child's learning or way of learning of some skill, the interchanges involving

that skill "will be unlikely to provide the finely tuned directives necessary to encourage

the child's inferences." (Stone, in press). Goodnow (1989) also emphasizes the need to

/ consider the culturally and socially determined explicit or implicit value of a skill in

interpersonal dynamics.

This study thus explores a more holistic conceptual paradigm that encompasses a

variety of learning approaches evidenced, hopefully with both fewer and less covert

4

biases, in an instrument that strives for a more authentic equity in method as well as in

interpretation.

Furthermore, this research maintains that recently designed collaborative models

of instruction, such as the cognitive apprenticeship .)clel (Collins, Brown & Newman,

1989), have been successful because they validate this continuum of learning approaches.

With the current shift toward cognitive and metacognitive models of instruction, there

has been an increasing interest in understanding active knowledge construction rather

than passive knowledge acquisition (Woolfolk, 1991; Phye & Andre, 1986).

This research has focused on higher-order thinking processes and their

development through social interaction (Bereiter, 1990; Cole, 1989; Stone, 1991).. based on

the Vygotskiian (1978) notion that all higher cognitive functions are derived from

interactions with others. If differences in school performance are related to differences in

the use of higher order cognitive strategies such as problem solving and reasoning

(Bjorklund, 1989), then perhaps each student uses different cognitive strategies to

construct knowledge. This would imply that the poorer classroom performance of a

student involves a potential "mismatch" between the cognitive strategies acquired and

used in learning contexts outside of school and those demanded in the classroom

(Thornburg, 1991; Gamer,1990).

Through the incorporation of "traditional" taxonomy such as complexity

sequencing, repetition, and skill practice, and by assuming connectedness, group

orientation, cooperation and mutual responsibilities, the cognitive apprenticeship model

promotes the development of higher-order thinking within a context of human

relationships. This approach fosters an optimal learning environment accessible through

a wide range of cognitive strategies. The argument Collins, Brown and Newman (1989)

5

make, verified by recent research (Reid & Stone, 1991; Thornburg, 1991), is that the

cognitive apprenticeship model allows equal access to disciplines to groups traditionally

lower in their achievement, as well as to higher achievers (Manning & Lucking, 1991).

This would suggest that lower-achieving students (including learning disabled, ESL, and

students from other than mainstream upper-middle class sociocultural backgrounds)

may have alternate "ways of knowing" that are facilitated in the social milieu.

SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY

The dialectic instrument for this study has been developed as a result of extensive

preliminary classroom observations and consultations with colleagues and experts in

field research. Because the observational data is organized using this new format, its use

was piloted by the researcher and two assistants with four randomly chosen students

from each of two randomly chosen classrooms other than, but similar in population to,

the ones selected for the exploratory study.

Piloting included the researcher's recording of discourse. Transcriptions of the

recorded discourse were independently evaluated by the researcher and two assistants

according to the dialectic format. There were three pairs of assistants during the course

of the study. Each member of a class was scored by the same pair of individuals.

Teachers were also asked to evaluate the participating students in a similar fashion, and

were interviewed in follow-up conversations by the researcher. Adjustments were made

in the wording of the instrument until 85% of the answers were in agreement at p < .05.

For example, the original explanation for the category of "Breadth" read "Generalist;

dilettante." This was perceived by the assistants as having a negative connotation, so the

description was changed to "Generalist wide ranging; broadly connected."

Upon completion of the pilot study in early November, 1992, thirty randomly

selected children (15 boys and 15 girls) in eight third grade science classes in se ten

suburban New York area public schools were studied. The schools are part of an

ongoing state-funded research program involving teacher training in mathematics and

science. The teachers have expressed their willingness to allow classroom observations

for this independent endeavor by requests made through workshops held as part of the

funded program. The participating schools were contacted and appointments were

made for on-site observations of third grade science classes

There were two male and six female teachers involved in this study. All were

middle class to upper middle class. One was Hispanic. The rest were of European

extraction. One was a first-year teacher; two had approximately eight years teaching

experience; five averaged 21 years experience (with a range of 17 to 25) in the classroom.

The average age was 47, with a range of 32 through 63.

The population of the schools involved in this study mirrors the population of

urban schools, with a multi-racial student body from lower to lower middle class

socioeconomic backgrounds, so the cohort is comparable to an urban setting. Of the

thirty participating students, seven were of European heritage; five were African

American; eight were Hispanic; and ten were Asian. Thirteen students were in

supplementary English as a second language (ESL) programs.

The researcher conducted ethnographic research within the classrooms, observing

each student on two separate occasions, about one week apart, for approximately twenty

minutes each time during the course of the study. No more than two class periods were

observed in a single day to prevent fatigue. The subjects were not aware that they were

being individually observed. Detailed observation and discreet audio recording were

f)

supplemented by semi-structured interviews with the teachers. Detailed descriptions of

the teacher? individual pedagogical practices and teaching styles were also made.

Since content interacts powerfully with teaching method (Joyce, 1978), it is of great

importance. Content components receive varying emphasis through the teaching model

being used to convey it (Joyce, 1978). More recent research of aptitude treatment

interactions (ATI) tends to verify Joyce's position (Woolfolk, 1991). Particular attention

focused on the content of discourse to explore the development of higher order

scaffolding by the teacher with "traditional" and "alternative" learners, and on the

variables which make learning experiences different for each student. Explicit strategy

instruction as well as the behavior of the teacher towards students, as manifested in

discourse, was taken into consideration.

All observed classes were regularly scheduled hands-on science lessons with

students working in pairs or groups. This type of lesson was chosen because it provided

the opportunity to observe a wider range of behavior and to better assess a more varied

range of interactions than more traditional instructional methods such as lecturing or

board work would allow. Also, because students were actively involved in projects, the

researcher was able to remain, relatively speaking, invisible, except for an occasional

request for assistance from a student.

All teachers provided some level modeling prior to the lesson, demonstrating the

steps needed to accomplish the task that the students would perform in their own

separate but parallel activities. All teachers entertained questions and walked around the

room during the activity answering questions, refocusing students not on-task, and, with

one exception, prompting and scaffolding further learning.

1Q

8

Scaffolding is a discursive facilitator of learning whereby a task is broken down into

smaller sequential steps and modeled by the teacher who then observes student attempts

to solve it, withdrawing from the activity (fading) as the student develops mastery.

Students' mastery of the task is evaluated as part of the learning process itself through,

for example, encouraging students to articulate the strategies they used. Scaffolding may

also be what Cazden (1988) has termed a "reformulation" of statements or questions.

When a teacher asks a question and receives no response after several seconds, he

reformulates it on a simpler level.

One teacher, as noted, was considerably more directive than the others, and did not

support the students' "discovery's or discussion of an answer or solution. Instead of

scaffolding, this teacher provided the "correct" answer. (This will be discussed later.)

Otherwise, teaching styles, possibly due to the nature of hands-on lessons, were very

similar.

The researcher transcribed recorded classroom discourse and ethnographic notes

within 24 hours. Identifying factors, including gender, were removed from the

transcripts which were then blind-coded by two assistants. The teacher and researcher

also completed coding instruments on each student. The answers on the 120 completed

coding instruments were correlated to determine level of agreement.

Frequency distributions of the dialectic codes were tabulated and treated verbally

and visually. A correlational study of science achievement scores, as reported by the

teachers, and dialectic codes of the subjects was made. The scores were also examined in

view of the variables of gender, ethnicity, and academic achievement to examine the

potential relationships among differences in the tendencies of dialectic codes, discourse,

and cognitive strategies.

Since one cannot assume normalcy of the frequency data, the data was treated as

ordinal. Non-parametric analysis was used for this reason and because the numbers in

each individual classroom violate standards for sample size. Spearman rank order

correlations were deemed the appropriate measurement in order to compare and contrast

the magnitude of differences between each pair of measures (Siegel, 1956).

INSTRUMENTATION

This exploratory effort attempts to examine the content and intent of each

student's discourse, and interpret the findings through an instrument designed to move

beyond the polarity and structural observational format of traditional discourse coding

categories and to capture the more inclusive context heretofore reserved for thick

description alone.

Discourse analysis is the study of verbal and nonverbal language interactions in a

given context and the examination and evaluation of patterns in and functions of that

interaction. Although the relationship between thought and language is still cause for

debate in cognitive research, analysis of classroom discourse has become an accepted

context for examining thought processes. (Cazden, 1988; Forman & McPhail, 1989; Stone,

1989). Discourse analysis "captures the multiple influences that go into creating the

context in which classroom lessons occur" (Lind say,1990).

However, Brophy (in Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985) writes that research using

quantita'ive, structural analysis of discourse does not all3w for capturing the "subtleties

and qualitative aspects of classroom events." Structural analysis tends to concentrate on

patterns and structure and to ignore experience (Lesko, 1988). These studies have, for

example, focused on enumerating teacher questions asked and/or counting frequency of

praise and reprimands (Wittrock, 1986, in Carlsen, 1989), or the time length of each verbal

10

exchange (Carlsen, 1990). Other studies have linked the type of questions asked to the

level of difficulty of the materials under discussion (Barr, 1987; Lindsay, 1990). Yet, they

have not interpreted it from a wider and more comprehensive standpoint (Morse &

Handley in Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985).

This research interprets discourse through an instrument that strives to bridge the

objective and subjective in order to offer a more holistic communication. The creation of

meaning and the self is an ongoing process from the standpoint of the subject shaped by

experience and socially defined identity. This endeavor, while representing context

frozen in time, attempts to acknowledge the multi-layered and sometimes contradictory

experiences of self.

The basis for the categories addressed in the instrument used in this study is

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule's list.of bimodal learning approaches that they

identified with "women's ways of knowing" (1986). They interviewed 135 women

representative of a diversity of ages, interests, education, circumstances, ethnicity, and

social class's. From these interviews and the work of Carol Gilligan and William Perry,

among others, Belenky and her colleagues (1986) developed their model of "educational

dialectics." These dimensions have been developed, through a more encompassing

"alternative" lens, into eleven conceptual continua that each address meaning from

different epistemological perspectives.

Established philosophical frameworks offer diffuse justifications for these

approaches. Habermas (1971), building on the work of Peirce, asserted that we need to

recognize that different realms of meaning are "equally -alid in all communities" (Aber,

1989). According to Habermas (1979), the success of a speech act to convey the meaning

of the utterance can only occur when the hearer enters into the relationship intended by

13

11

the speaker. Structural forms of discourse analysis, by their objective nature, do not

allow room for this interpretive relationship.

Furthermore, because they may be dependent on context and/or extralinguistic

communication, expressive speech acts (such as those that disclose, conceal, and reveal

information) cannot be correlated with the expressive use of language as constative

speech acts (true/false statements and other representations of fact) are correlated with

the cognitive use of language and regulative speech acts (those that function to establish

interpersonal relations) with the interactive (Habermas, 1979). Thus, one would have to

look beyond, within, or possibly through the linguistic content to establish meaning of

expressive speech acts and create a global orientation toward understanding meaning.

Because it maintains such an awareness and builds on these Habermasian premises,

Jakobson's approach toward communicative interaction provides a useful perspective

applicable to the interpretation of discourse.

Jakobson's communication model (Brown, 1982) is grounded in semiotic theory

and proposes six functions of language that provide a venue for examining the content

and context of language. The emotive function concerns the speaker's attitude about

what he says. It can be expressive (intentional and /or indirect/unintentional) or

affective (attitudinal, proxemic, and kinesic). Affect has associative potentialities such as

propaganda and poetry the domains of metaphor (Rommetveit 1974). The opposite of

emotive is connative, which produces an effect on the receiver inducing him to act

(organizational mode) or react (affective mode). Connotative demands a performance.

The referential function is denotative and cognitive. It is concerned with objectifiable,

scientific and truth statements. The phatic function includes any (verbal or nonverbal)

utterance used to establish, prolong or discontinue communication.

1 4

12

The classic of this model is reproduced below:

Context(Referential)

Addresser -------------------------Message---- Addressee(Emotive) (poetic) (Connotive)

Contact(Phatic)

Code(Metalingual)

According to Jakobson: "The ADDRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the

ADDRESSEE. To be operative the message requires a CONTEXT ... seizable by the

addressee and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a CODE fully, or at least

partially, common to the aadresser and addressee (or in other words to the encoder and

decoder of the message); and, finally, a CONTACT, a physical channel and psychological

connection between the addresser and the addressee enabling both of them to enter in

and stay in communication:' (Sebeok, 1960, in Brown, 1982).

Jakobson pointed out that features of a message cannot be considered apart from

their functions (Brown, 1982). The problem with most methodologies, as Frown points

ou, about foreign language instruction, is that they view speech interactions as "object-

oriented," treating all speech communication as if they depended only on the referential,

denotative, or cognitive function, without making the implicit functions of the speech act

explicit. The same can be said of traditional discourse coding categories. Attempts have

been made to incorporate the phatic function, most notably by Courtney Cazden's (1988)

inclusion of features such as "bounding off" in classroom discourse, but it remains

primarily a verbal utterance. The emotive and affective functions have been relegated to

descn :n alone and thus outside the realm of quantification. By encompassing

13

objective and subjective constituent elements of communication acts, the instrument

attempts to begin to address a more complete discursive interaction, hopefully creating a

more meaningful, equitable assessment.

Given the speculative nature of this research, using a conceptualization fairly new

to the discipline, the investigator provides a brief description of relative concepts

addressed in the instrument and speculates a discursive sample that could evidence the

concepts. (See Appendixes A and B.)

A) Process or goal oriented: What is more important to the student the means

or the outcome? What is the purpose of education to this student? Is the child involved

in the project or materials or anxious to get to the end result or the "right" result?

B) Discovery or didactism: How does the student view knowledge and

knowledge acquisition? Is it actively constructed through experience or passively

received from an "authority?" Is the student a recipient or a source of knowledge? The

student's behavior, questions, and contributions during lessons may provide evidence of

this. For example, does the student share ideas [constructivist] or simply repeat back

what was said [didactive] ?)

C) Rational or intuitive: What method(s) does the student use for analysis? Are

logical, analytic, objective methods or subjective, autonomous, "gut feelings" preferred?

Does student follow instructions or "jump in" on his own? Why? Can the student give

reasons for his conclusions? What type of reasons? Does the student rely on universal

principles and deduction or favor context, relativity and induction?

D) Separate or related: What is the relationship between learning and "life?" Is

schooling compartmentalized or synthesized? Does the student attempt to connect

learning to what is already known? Does the student maintain a formal, impersonal

11U

14

stance, separating schooling from other areas of life? Or does the child attempt to

connect knowledge to their personal schema, perhaps as exemplified in relating an event

or asking a question that indicates an effort to integrate the knowledge?

E) Exclusion or inclusion: Does the student prefer being with others or being

alone or on her own? Which style(s) of learning has the student experienced and

favored? Does the student prefer to work in a collaborative, cooperative way or a

solitary, competitive way. Does the student join in group activities or remain an

"outsider"? Why? Does s/he join in if encouraged or still resist?

F) Breadth or concentration: What is the range of the student's interest in

learning? Is it general and wide-ranging or specific and focused? Is knowledge in-depth

or superficial? Is it narrowly or broadly connected?

G) Supportive or challenging: Who and what are experienced as supportive

and/or non-supportive? Does the student respond more to direct guidance and

assistance or challenges of problem solving? Does the student turn to peers or teacher for

help? Does the student resist soliciting or accepting guidance?

H) Personal or impersonal: How does the student view the relationship between

self and other? How are the student's relationships structured with peers? Faculty?

Staff? Are they formal or informal? Open and receptive or distant? Why?

I) Self-concern or other concern: Is caring for the self and /or others an issue in

the student's classroom activities? This may be sl .,wn by expressions of concern,

nurturing behavior, offers and giving of help, sharing, self-sacrificing behavior, and

attitudes towards rights and responsibilities.

J) Inner-directed or outer directed: Is the student intrinsicly or extrinsicly

motivated? What factors control goal setting, pacing, decision making, and evaluation

15

for the student? Who and what does the student experience as validating and/or

nonvalidating? Does the student look to others for self-knowledge or within the self?

Does the student tend to be judgmental or non-judgmental? 1!.., the student prone to

argue or attempt to understand the other viewpoint?

K) Listening or speaking: What are the student's experiences of verbalization?

Does the student speak out or maintain silence? Is s/he outspoken or quiet? Is speaking

or not speaking a voluntary act, a forced response, or a confrontation or avoidance? Is

the student hesitant? Why? ( Is it, for example, possibly due to learning style or lack of

language ability or domain knowledge?) Is listening active or passive?

Process, Discovery, Intuitive, Related, Inclusion, Breadth, Supportive, Personal,

Other-concerned, Outer directed, and Listening represent the "alternative" cognitive

strategies. The poles of each continuum are separated by gradations of one through five

on a likert-like scale. So, for example, a two rating on continuum A would be closer to a

process oriented than a goal oriented perspective, and would translate into a rating of

four when converted to traditional and alternative poles for statistical and descriptive

purposes. Therefore, the lower the numeric value of the converted score, the more

"traditional" the approach to learning. (See Appendixes C and D.)

Inter-rater agreement on 93.18% of answers was significant (p < .05 with a range

of .40862 to 1.0 correlation), with eight out of the eleven categories reaching complete

(100%) correlation at p < .05. The high level of agreement may be due to the overlapping

of similar categories, which will be addressed later (See table 2). Teacher ratings showed

the most disparity with the general consensus, especially in the categories of

separate/related (87.5% agreement), concentration/breadth (87.5% agreement), and self-

concern/other concern (50% agreement). (See Appendix E.)

16

One might expect teachers to disagree even more with the other three raters, since

they bring more knowledge of each child to their ratings, but, on the whole, this was not

the case. The most exteme disagreement was in the area of self-concern/other-concern,

where teachers may have considered expressions of concern for others as disruptive or

untimely. For example, on a student given a "5" rating on that category, the teacher

wrote: "She will help anyone and everyone in the room. Whether she's supposed to or

not." Since only two science classes were observed, during which time students were

supposed to be helping each other, this may not have been apparent to the researcher and

raters. On the other hand, perhaps this perception was based on the teacher's own

general and specific biases.

The largest discrepancies in individual ratings were clustered in one class

(students 5, 6 and 7.) It appeared to the researcher and two assistants that this teacher

favored one student above the others, which may have contributed to the disagreement.

This student was frequently complimented ('That's a good questionl "), addressed by

name more often tha .1 the others, and permitted to interrupt (such as asking "When are

we having the science fair?" or engaging the teacher in a dialogue about his fathers

birthday in the middle of a discussion about the weather), while others who did this were

ignored, reprimanded, or told to raise their hands.

While the teacher saw this child as highly "other-concerned," the other three

raters saw him as highly "self-concerned." One assistant commented: 'This student has a

tendency to interrupt and seeks to focus attention on herself or himself." The teacher

gave him the highest rating in "process oriented," "discovery," and "rational" poles

while the other raters all gave him the highest rating in the opposite areas of "goal

oriented," "didactic," and "intuitive." Similarly, the teacher rated the other students in

17

the study as highly "separate" and "exclusion" oriented, although other raters disagreed,

commenting, for example, that "this students wants to be part of the group, but is not

acknowledged by the teacher." Perhaps the teacher's judgement was colored by what

she viewed as the "better" of each pair, even though it was clearly explained that each

pole represented a different approach and one was not "better" than the other.

The other exception among the teachers was, as mentioned earlier, the more

directive style of one teacher. This teacher provided detailed guidance during the entire

activity, often telling students how to solve the problems they encountered without

scaffolding or leading them to the discovery of a solution on their own, and without

entertaining alternate methods or answers contributed by the students.

However, the scores of the students of the more directive teacher (students 22

through 26) were highly correlated (p < .05) with the scores of the other raters. One

might have expected this more directive approach to result in a more "traditional" rating

for this group of students, but this was not the case. The mean scores of these five

students ranged from 2.704 through 3.636 and were normally distributed.

Teacher bias, in this case, seems to have made a difference in the consistency of

the results obtained with the instrument, while teacher style did not.

Data from this and several other studies (Brophy in Wilkinson & Menet, 1985)

comparing male and female teachers does not support the notion that teachers of either

sex treat same sex students differently, more appropriately, or more effectively

supporting Brophy and Good's (1974) conclusions that "sex differences in students'

classroom experiences are not due to the sex of their teachers."

18

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Since this research uses exploratory methods and is an ongoing endeavor, the

findings are tentative. Out of 175 possible correlations, there were 34 significant at p <

.05. Negative correlations are inversely related. So, for example, in Table 1, a "rational"

cognitive strategy is highly correlated with academic achievement, as are "challenging"

and "inner- directed" Given the number of statistics, correlations are presented in

graphic form and the researcher has chosen to deal with those results found more

compelling for this presentation.

INSERT TABLE I

Only the overall mean score correlated with gender. Although males made up

80% of the "traditional" half of the students (with mean scores of 2.273 to 3.204) and

females 80% of the "alternative" half (mean scores of 3.227 to 3.886) this was not

significant across instrumental categories, which may be a function of the small N (30).

However, it may be noteworthy that variations in male scores ranged 40% wider

than female scores. Because the population for this study was comprised of eight year

olds, this wider variation may simply reflect the more uneven developmental or

maturational differences among males at that age (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Or, it may

reflect cultural factors, such as a wider range of socially acceptable behaviors available to

one sex, with a corresponding restriction of similar freedoms for the other.

One could speculate that the differences in the span of the ranges may also be a

result of the interaction between gender and ethnicity. Does such an interaction, for

Ct

19

example, pull the male in two directions as he tries to establish an equilibrium between

the opposing tendencies of his own inclinations and societal expectations? And is this, in

fact, a stronger issue for males than females? Further study is needed to explore this,

especially if the unusually high percentage of differences in distribution curves between

genders remains in a larger sample.

Both female and male showings were strongest in "traditional" realms. "Inner-

Directed /Outer-directed" was the most strongly "male" category ( with 10 falling in the

"traditional" half and 5 in the "alternative"). "Speaking/Listening" was the most

strongly "female" category (with 9 falling in the "traditional" half and 6 in the

"althernative"). This latter finding is discrepant with the majority of studies on gender

differences and the use of language that generally find that the men "speak" and the

women "listen." (See Belenky, et. al, 1986, for further discussion.)

Five instrumental categories were evenly split by gender (8 or 7 "traditional" and

7 or 8 "alternative"): "Goal oriented/Process oriented;" "Self-concem/Other-concern;"

"Didactism/Discovery;" "Separate/Related;" "Concentration/Breadth."

"Rational/Intuitive," "Exclusion/Inclusion," "Challenging/Supportive," and

"Impersonal/Personal" categories all totalled 9 "traditional" males, 6 "alternative" males

and 6 "traditional" females, 9 "alternative" females. Although the aforesaid scores were

consistent when grouped by gender, they were not obtained by the same individuals.

INSERT TABLE 2

20

The high number of correlations in table 2 may, in part, be due to the similarity of

categories such as "Spealcing/Listening" with "Separate/Related" and others based on

behaviors indicative of tendencies in the areas reflected in interpersonal relations.

While the overall mean score correlates with six of the eleven instrumental

categories, ("Rational/Intuitive," "Separate/Related," "Exclusion/Inclusion,"

"Concentration /Breadth" "Impersonal/Personal," and "Self-concern-Other-concern")

only two of these categories ("Rational/Intuitive" and "Separate/Related") also correlate

with academic achievement. Three correlate with ethnicity (Rational/Intuitive,

"Separate/Related," and "Self-concern/Other-concern"). None correlate with gender.

Further work will be directed toward determining the semantic inclusiveness and

overlap of these categories in an effort to ascertain whether they provide sufficient

differentiation of discernible characteristics. Individual correlations will be reexamined

based on the conclusions of this endeavor and, if warranted, correlations will be

determined on aggregate group scores of homogeneous categories to compare

significance levels with those described earlier.

The previous descriptions may impact on the reader in a way suggestive of

discrete entities, which, this researcher maintains, they are not. In an effort to represent

data in a less divisive, hierarchical way, circular "continuum wheels" were constructed.

By visually presenting research results as a continuum, it is hoped that gender, ethnicity,

and academic achievement may be more easily seen as component parts of a whole. For

example, the bipolar peaks of "males" that would appear at each end of a linear

continuum of mean scores appear here as a less oppositional "cluster." Through the

mediation of visual representation, it is hoped that a more holistic paradigm might be

brought closer to realization. (Appendix F)

3

21

A comparison of gender and ethnicity reveals that while all European-American

males are in the "traditional" span of scores, none of them are in the top 90%, which is

83% Asian and includes two females, only one of whom is of European background. This

comparison raises issues about the relation between ethnicity and gender. It might also

suggest that perhaps ethnicity is a stronger factor than gender in determining cognitive

approaches or that perhaps they should not be separated. These are issues to be

explored at a future time.

Although ESL students were evenly distributed throughout the continuum of

learning styles, this may also be a factor for further consideration. The degree of English

proficiency, or the perception of such proficiency by the speaker, may have a direct

bearing on some of the instrumental categories which may be, at least in part, speech

dependent. Other confounding variables may include self-esteem, motivation, and

physical contact between students and teachers.

Fourteen students were reported by their teachers as above average to high in

academic and science achievement. Of these, eight (1 female and 7 males) may be

characterized as "traditional" and six (2 males and 4 females) as "alternative" in cognitive

strategies, if we divide the wheel by mean scores. Five (one "alternative" female and four

"traditional" males) are ESL students. However, eight of those fourteen also fall in the

lower half of the visual representation of the continuum, which may be seen as reflecting

a combination of traditional and alternative strategies, or a facility with both types. Yet,

here too, males remain in the majority, occupying five of the eight slots. In this half, one

female and two males are ESL students. The remaining six students then cluster at the

poles interestingly divided in half and occupying the three most extreme ends of both

traditional (two ESL maks and one female) and alternative (one male and two female)

poles. The high achievers include almost half of all ESL students.

Six were reported to be average students and ten to be low to below average in

achievement. Average students were comprised of two "alternative" females, two

"traditional" females, one of whom is also an ESL student, and two "traditional" males.

Of the lower achieving students, three scored as "traditional" learners and seven as

"alternative." The three low achieving students with traditional scores were all males,

two of whom are ESL students. All of the six low achieving females, four of whom are

ESL students, had alternative scores.

This may indicate that cognitive strategy may be even more important than

gender or ethnicity for lower achieving students. Perhaps alternative cognitive strategies,

which predominate among children prior to school age and are acquired outside of the

classroom, have not transferred to the school environment, as Garner set forth in her

theory of settings (1990).

Or, perhaps, as Gumperz argued, lower achieving students are less adept at "code

switching" between "home" language and "school" language a language, in this case

being, according to Bakhtin, "discourse peculiar to a particular stratum of society within

a given social system at a given time" (Wertsch, 1991, in Mckeough & Lupert, 1991).

Since two-thirds of the low achieving students were ESL students, while only one-third

of the higher achieving students were, this may warrant further attention. The ESL

literature lends support to this explanation through studies of contextualized and

decontextualized language use (Treuba, 1989; Sager, 1988; Tharp & Gallimore, 1987;

Cummins in Hakuta, 1986).

22

23

On the other hand, since approximately half of the higher achieving males were

ESL students, while only one-fifth of the females were, perhaps we are back to the

conundrum this endeavor began with the multi-dimesionality of inequity and the

embeddedness of every critical difference within each of the others. The question to be

addressed then becomes "Does addressing the cognitive strategies of students regardless

of gender, ethnicity, and class provide a solution to the dilemma of creating more

equitable access to education ?"

There is a tradition of functionalist educational research that claims to address this

dilemma. However, its "fatal empirical flaw," as discussed by Bereiter (1990) is that this

tradition provides a means of predicting or weighing the effects of different variables,

but, "if one's goal is understanding and explanation, then it is necessary to take account

of interactions with the possibility that the effect of any one variable depends on the

state of the other variables." Furthermore, as Cronbach (1975, in Bereiter, 1990) said,

"Once we attend to interactions, we en'c,r a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity.

However far we carry our analysis ... untested interactions of a still higher order can be

envisioned."

This endeavor does not escape the "hall -of- mirrors." But it does attempt to lessen

the glare and the distraction of the multiplicity of images in order to focus on the more

pragmatic issue of what can be done about creating a more equitable learning

environment.

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule (1986) concluded that "connected

teaching" (instruction that uses the "midwife" model rather than the typical "banking

model" iFreire, 19681) complemented the learning approaches of women the basis for

the "alternative" cognitive strategies addressed in this study. According to Freire's

2

24

views of teaching models, (1968), this practice of problem-solving, cognitive oriented

education is dialogic and mediational. The dialogic use of language, as Habermas said

(1971), always requires hermeneutic understanding. Rommetveit defines hermeneutics

as "the openness of language towards intuitively and experientially shared knowledge,"

and the embeddedness of the act of speech in social life (1974). This social interaction

results in comparisons among multiple perspectives, giving one access to other

approaches. The teacher and students become co-creators of knowledge through

discourse. This perspective echoes Vygotskiian theory and is incorporated into the

cognitive apprenticeship view of instruction (Collins, et al., 1989). This model works

because it makes possible the perceiving of wholes while being simultaneously aware of

patterns, parts and relationships as constituant features of the whole an approach this

research has struggled to reflect.

CONCLUSION

Durkheim argued that all conceptions have their origins in society. (Lesko, 1988).

This stt:dy attempts to partially illuminate the issues of equity in schools, and the society

of which th,i, are a reflection. The purpose of this paper has been to explore a

perspective on research in general and discourse analysis specifically, that might yield a

more holistic paradigm. It partially elucidates the difference between traditional and

alternative learning styles, and, more generally, adds to the growing knowledge of

discourse (Morse & Handley, 1985, in Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985; Carlsen, 1989, 1990)

and, specifically, its impact on learning differences in content instruction. Knowing more

about the interactional processes of learning and their different relationships to

individual students should add to our efforts to define effective teaching and

2"

25

develop/emphasize instructional strategies which address individual styles of learning

and interaction.

This research also sought to examine the potential relationships among differences

in the frequency of dialectic scores and instructional strategies in relation to gender,

ethnicity, and achievement. It would be premature to offer conclusions about the success

or lack of success of this initial effort. However, some consistent observations and trends

have been identified and presented in the findings and discussion section of this paper.

This endeavor has raised some of the issues surrounding the possibility of a holistic,

equitable educational approach based on cognitive strategies as a "unit" of analysis,

rather than the more divisive categories that have dominated equity research. "Units,"

according to Vygotsky (1988), "designated a product of analysis that contained all the

basic characteristics of the whole" (Moll, 1990). Such a cognitive approach does not

ignore the forces of gender, ethnicity, class, and achievement, but, building on

Vygotskiian perspectives, encompasses them within the paradigm (Wertsch,

Likewise, the resulting situated learning context recognizes that knowledge is densely

interwoven with social and physical realms (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) and does

not attempt to artificially separate them.

In a Vygotskiian approach, it is semiotic mediation that links the setting with

individual cognitive functioning. One of the advantages to his perspective is the focus on

practical activity which is a priori theory. To acknowledge the theoretical embeddedness

of these constructs and the paradoxes that this research has illuminated, may be sufficient

to move beyond theory and return to the realm of praxis.

0 nu

26

REFERENCESAber, J. (1989). Confusing the technical, the practical, and the emancipatory: A

Habermasian critique of pedagogy. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Conference on College Composition and Communciation, Seattle, WA.

Be lenity, M. F., Clinchy. B. McV.. Goldberger, N. R & Tarule, J. M. (1986).Women's Ways of Knowing. NY: Basic Books.

Bergner. C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review ofEducational Research. 60 (4) 603-624.

Brown, J. S., Collins. A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the cultureof learning. Educational Researcher. 18 (I) 32-34.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Newman. S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick(Ed.). Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser.Hillsdale. NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, J. W. (1984) Communicative competence vs. communicative cognizance:Jakobson's model revis-d.Canadiart Modem Language Review.40(4)600-615.

Carlsen, W. S. (1990) Teacher Knowledge and the language of science teaching.Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation, Atlanta, GA.

Carlsen. W. S. (1989) Questioning in Classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective.Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco. CA.

Case, R. (1986). Intellectual Development Birth through Adulthood. NY: AcademicPress.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom Discourse. Portsmouth, NH: HeL. man.Chodorow, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psycholanalysts and the

Sociology of Gender. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Cookson, P.W. (1991). Private Schooling and Equity: Dilemmas of Choice.

Education and Urban Society (23) 2. 185-199.Derrida, J. (1981). Semiology and grammatology: An interview with Julia

Kristeva. In Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice. NY: Cornell University

Press.Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: Seabury Press. Forman. E. &

McPhail, J. (1989). What have we teamed about the cognitive benefits of peerinteraction? A Vygotsidian critique. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies:Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research. 60 (4) 517-530.

Gilligan. C. (1982). InA Different Voice. Cambridge, MA Harvard UniversityPress.

Gilligan, C., Lyons. N. & Hanmer. T. (1989). Making Connections. Cambridge,MA Harvard University Press

Gilligan. C.. Ward, J.V.. & Taylor. J. McL. (Eds.) (1988) Mapping the MoralDomain: A contribution of women's thinking to psychological theory andeducation. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press.

Good, T.L. & Brophy, J.E. (1991). Looking in Classrooms. 5th Edition. NY:Harper Collins.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MABeacon Press.(1973). Legitmation Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press

29

27

Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. NY: BasicBooks.

Hart, L.E. (1989). Classroom processes, sex of student and confidence inlearning mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20 (3)242-260.

Jones, M. G. & Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student inter-actions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (9)861-874.

Joyce, B. R (1978) Selected learning experiences: linking theory and practice.Washington. D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lesko, N. (1988). Symbolizing Society. NY: The Fainter Press.Lindsay, J. (1990) Classroom discourse analysis: a review of the literature with

implications for educational evaluation. Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 23 (2) 107-116.

Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin. C.N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences.Stanford, CA Stanford University Press.

McKeough, A & Lupart, J.L. (Eds.). (1991). Toward the Practice of Theory-basedInstruction. NJ: Lawrence Erlebaum Assoc.

Molt L.C. (Ed.) (1990) Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications andapplications of sociohistorical psychology. NY: Campbridge Press.

Noddings. N. (1992). The gender issue. Educational Leadership, 49 (4) 65 - 70.(1988). The Ethic of Caring and it's implications for instructionalarrangements. American. Journal of Education, 96 (2) 215-230.

Phye, G. & Andrei,T. (Eds.). 1986. Cognitive Classroom Learning. NY: AcademicPress

Reid, D. K. & Stone, C. A.(1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Under-lying learning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (3) 8-19.

Resnick. L. & Klopfer, L. (Eds.). (1989). Towards the Thinking Curriculum:Current Cognitive Research. Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Rogoff, B. & Wertsch, J.V. (1984). Children's Learning in the Zone of ProximalDevelopment San Francisco, CA Jossey Bass.

Rommetveit, R (1974). On Message Structure. NY: John Wiley & Sons.Seliger, H. (1988). Psycholinguistic Issues in Second Language Acquisition. in

Beebe, L.M. (Ed.). (1988). Issues in Second Language Acquisition. NY:Newbury House

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. NY:McGraw-Hill.

Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (1985). Ethnography: an anthropological view.Educational Horizons, 63 (4), 154-157.

Stone, C. A. (1989). The role of communicational dynamics in strategy instruction.Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Stone, C. A (in press). What's Missing in the Metaphor of Scaffolding' In E.A.Forman, N. Minick and C. A. Stone (Eds.) Contexts for Learning: Socio-cultural Dynamics in Children's Development. NY: Oxford University Press.

Tharp. RG. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, learningand schooling in social context NY: Cambridge University Press.(1987). Teaching Mind and society: Theory and practice of teaching, literacy,and schooling. Manuscript. Neuropsychiatric Institute. University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

Thornburg, D.G. (1991) Strategy instruction for academically at-risk students:

28

an exploratory study of teaching "higher-order reading and writing in thesocial studies. Journal of Reading, Writing and Learning DisabilitiesIntematiorual. 7 (4) 377-406.

Thornburg. D. G. & Karp, K. (1993. in press). Lessons learned: apprenticeshipapproaches to teaching mathematics and science to bilingual students.Journal of Education of Language Minority Students.

Treuba, H.T. (1989). Raising Silent Voices: Educating Linguistic Minorities for the21st Century. NY:Newbury House Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works: Volume 1. Problems of generalpsychology NY: Plenum Press.(1978). Mired in Society. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Walberg, H.J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developingcountries. Review of Educational Research. 61 (1) 25-69.

Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilkinson, L.C. & Marrett, C.B. (Eds) (1985). Gender Influences in ClassroomInteraction. NY: Academic Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1965). The Blue and Brown Books. NY: Harper & Row.Woolfolk. A.E. (1991) Educational Psychology. NJ: Prentice Hall.

31

Student Code #Rater Initials

APPENDIX AEDUCATIONAL DIALECTICS INSTRUMENT

RATING SCALE

1 2 3 4 5A) Process Oriented 0 0 0 0 0 Goal Oriented

Means EndsWhat is the purpose of education to this student? Connection or mastery? The means orthe outcome? Evidence: For example, is the child involved in the project or materials, oranxious to get to the end result preferably the "right" result?

B) Discovery 0 0 0 0 0 DidactismConstructed knowledge Received knowledgeHow does this student view knowledge and knowledge aquisition? Is it actively con-structed or passively received? is the student a recipient or a source of knowledge?Evidence: content of student's questions and contributions during class. Does thestudent share ideas (constructivist) or simply "report" (didactive)?

C) Rational Logical, 0 0 0 0 0 Intuitiveanalytical, objective Gut feeling, subjectiveWhat method(s) does the student use for analysis? Are logical, analytic, objectivemethods or subjective, autonomous, "gut feelings" preferred? Evidence: responsesand procedures: Does the student wait forlfollow instructions or jump in" on theirown? Why? Can the student give reasons for conclusions? What type of reasons?Does the student rely on universal principles and deduction or favor context,relativity, and induction?

0 4

Student Code #Rater Initials

1 2 3 4 5

ID) Separate 0 0 0 0 0 RelatedCompartmentalization Synthesis

What is the relationship between learning and "life"? Is schooling compartmental-ized or synthesized? Possible evidence: Does the student attempt to connect know-ledge to their personal schema, perhaps as exemplified in an episodic narrative ora question that indicates such an effort, or does the student maintain a formal,impersonal stance?

E) Inclusion 0 0 0 0 0 ExclusionCo-operative, collaborative Solitary, competitiveDoes the student prefer being with others or being alone or on their own? Whichstyle(s) of learning has the student experienced? Favored? Possible evidence: Doesthe student join in group activities or remain an "outsider?" Why? Does slhe join inif encouraged or still resist?

F) Breadth 0 0 0 0 0 ConcentrationGeneralist, wide-ranging Specialist, focusedWhat is the range of the student's interests in learning? Is knowledge in-depth orsuperficial? Narrowly focused or broadly connected?

0) Supportive 0 0 0 0 0 ChallengingWho and what are experienced as supportive/nonsupportive? Does the studentrespond more to direct assistance or challenges of problem solving? Evidence: Doesthe student turn to peers or teacher for help? Does the student resist soliciting oraccepting guidance?

33

Student Code #Rater Initials

1 2 3 4 5

H) Personal 0 0 0 0 0 ImpersonalHow does the student view the relationship between self and the content oflearning? How are relationships structured with peers? Faculty? Staff? Are theyformal or informal? Open and receptive or distant?

I) Self-concern 0 0 0 0 0 Other-concernIs caring for self vs. others an issue in the student's classroom activities? Possibleevidence: expressions of concern, nurturing behavior, offers and giving of help,sharing, se -sacrificing, rights vs. responsibilities.

J) Inner-directed 0 0 0 0 0 Outer-directedIntrinsic or extrinsic motivation? What factors control goal setting, pacing, decisionmaking and evaluation for the student? Who and what does the student experienceas validatinginonvalidating? Does the student look to others for self-knowledge orwithin the self? Does the student tend to be judgemental or non-judgemental? Proneto argue or understand the other viewpoint?

K) Listening 0 0 0 0 0 SpeakingWhat are the student's experiences of verbalization? Does the student speak out ormaintain silence? is s /he outspoken or quiet? Is speaking or not speaking a voluntaryact, a forced response, or an avoidance or confrontation? Is the student hesitant?Why? (for example: due to learning style or lack of domain knowledge?) Is listeningactive or passive?

Please feel free to add any other comments you think would helpful in thisassessment. Use the back of this page to do so.

3 4

tat WITINAL USE ONLY

CODE #

APPENDIX BTEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

EDUCATIONAL DIALECTICS INSTRUMENTSchool Teacher

Grade StudentStudent's Age Sex Ethnic background

RAMC SCALE

1 2 3 4 5A) Process Oriented 0 0 0 0 0 Goal Oriented

Means EndsWhat is the purpose of education to this student? Connection or mastery? The means orthe outcome? Is the child involved in the project or materiels, or anxious to get to the endresult?

B) Discovery 0 0 0 0 0 DidactismConstructed knowledge Received knowledgeHow does this student view knowledge and knowledge aquisition? Is it actively constructedor passively received? Is the student a recipient or a source of knowledge? Does thestudent share ideas (constructivist) or simply "report" (didactive)?

C) Rational Logical, 0 0 0 0 0 Intuitiveanalytical, objective Gut feeling, subjectiveWhat method(s) does the student use for analysis? Are logical, analytic, objective methodsor subjective, autonomous, "gut feelings" preferred? Does the student "jump in" on theirown? Can the student give reasons for conclusions? What type of reasons?

3 )

FOR INTERN AL USE ONLY

CODE #

1 2 3 4 5

D) Separate 0 0 0 0 0 RelatedCompartmentalization SynthesisWhat is the relationship between learning and "life"? Does the student attempt to connectknowledge to their personal schema, or maintain a formal, impersonal stance?

E) Inclusion 0 0 0 0 0 ExclusionCo-operative, collaborative Solitary, competitiveDoes the student prefer being with others or being alone or on their own? Does the studentjoin in group activities or remain an "outsider?" Why? Does s /he join in if encouraged orstill resist? Which style(s) of learning has the student experienced? Favored?

F) Breadth 0 0 0 0 0 ConcentrationGeneral, wide ranging Specific, focusedWhat is the range of the student's interests in learning? Is knowledge narrowly orbroadly connected?

G) Supportive 0 0 0 0 0 ChallengingWho and what are experienced as supportivelnonsupportive? Does the student respond moreto direct assistance or challenges of problem solving? Does the student resist soliciting oraccepting guidance?

Iii

FOR ATERN AL USE ONLY

CODE #

1 2 3 4 5

H) Personal 0 0 0 0 0 ImpersonalNow does the student view the relationship between self and she content of learning? Noware relationships structured with peers? Faculty? Staff? Are they formal or informal?Open and receptive or distant?

I) Self-concern 0 0 0 0 0 Other-concernIs caring for self vs. others an issue in the student's classroom activities?

3) Inner-directed 0 0 0 0 0 Outer-directedIs the student intrinsically or extrinsically motivated? What factors control goal setting,pacing, decision making and evaluation for the student? Who and what does the studentexperience as validatingMonvalidating? Does the student look to others for self-knowledgeor within the self?

K) Listening 0 0 0 0 0 Speaking

What are the student's experiences of verbalization? Does the student speak out or maintainsilence? Is s /he outspoken or quiet?

On the back of this page, please give a brief evaluation of the student's lan-guage and academic abilities, including strengths and weaknesses. Pleaseadd any other comments you think would be helpful in this assessment.

37

APPENDIX CEDUCATIONAL DIALECTICS INSTRUMENT

TALLEY SHEET

SUBJECT

Rating Scale

1 2 3 4 5

A) Process Oriented Goal Oriented

B) Discovery Didactism

C) Rational Intuitive

D) Separate Related

E) Inclusion Exclusion

F) Breadth Concentration

G) Supportive Challenging

H) Personal Impersonal

I) Self-concern Other-concern

J) Inner-directed Outer-directed

K) Listening Speaking

Comments:

3u

APPENDIX DInstrument Conversion

to traditional and alternative poles for statistical purposes

SUBJECT

Note: Traditional and alternative poles on the dialectic instrument used in this studywere randomly assigned either a first or last position. This chart converts those poles sothat all "traditional" categories are on the left and alternative categories are on the right.Ratings for categories that were listed in this order on the instrument will remain thesame, while those that were in the opposite order will be converted to conform to thesame directional scale. For example, a rating of I for the category of 'Process Oriented/Goal Oriented," which was listed with the alternative pole first on the rater's instrument,would become a 5 on this conversion scale, while ratings on the "Rational/Intuitive"category will remain the same, since that category was originally listed in this format.

Traditional Poles: 1 2 3 4 5 Alternative Poles:

Goal Oriented 1-1 E El CI Process Oriented

Didactism El CI El E Discovery

Rational C C El 0 D Intuitive

Separate El CI El CI El Related

Exclusion El CI Ell 1:1 Inclusion

Concentration 7 El E Breadthr 5

Challenging

0C 0 El Supportive

Impersonal El D 0 0 CI Personal

Self-concern El C Other-concern

Inner-directed El El Outer-directed

Speaking El El El El D Listening

3:i

Goa

l

Proc

ess

Rat

iona

l

Intu

it A

t

Did

acbs

m

Dis

cove

ry

APP

EN

DIX

E (

1)

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Goa

l Orie

nted

/Pro

cess

Orie

nted

Sco

re

Stu

dent

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

11_

___A

**_*

_ t.4. ;0 -

--* 41

ill 7..- *

ii ..A

..--

* it-- 2.

"-

_**

* d

_.

7k ' . d

____

_d

MT ir*

d .4 t_ *

41 it

it so,

t *

di ct*

-_

.. * * di

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Did

actis

m/D

isco

very

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

2*

d1 ... * ...

._

It_.

_

f*._,

_ - 1*

* .1 ...

eoc+

... *ef

.,

d. *tr

d --di

Iet

_ e* -.,

* Cs

-**.

___

Z *

"A

Me

_ et."

*.__ et *

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Rat

iona

l/int

uitiv

e

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1112

1314

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

301

23

45

67

89

10

itt d*

4- it

,d

4* .. II

lit*

-

21.-

V(

* _

tte* _

1 r *

_ . t ofi

t ' 1 ___

t* Ii t

**2*

*I

d .. *

IA _*-

1;

41.4

. A I-.

41 A d4 5

$....

t-0

e***

**'

*

1:)

KE

Y:

s R

esea

rche

rT

each

er

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

s R

esea

rche

rT

each

er

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

seR

esea

rche

r

Tea

cher

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

4

Sep

arat

e

Rel

ated

Exc

lusi

on

Indu

sion

Con

cent

ratio

n

Bre

adth

AP

PE

ND

IX E

(2)

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Sep

arat

e/R

elat

ed

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

15

*d

il4, it

*

* MP

d, in *

1-- d

2di

C. *

tn fi3

"tat

le

_it* .4

.d_ r*

«l*

- *d *1;

A4r :

__A

AT

it

f tot".

* d

* in_ *.

4et *

le"6

*4

6A

5t

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Exc

lusi

on/In

clus

ion

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

301

23

45

67

89

1011

2425

2627

2829

2 _.._

. - ;IV

_. -; * _L

en

__ ._

__a* til

-ii5

_. 4-4 *

* 1

I_ * -d - _

. *S

.* a

d t,L

-* 4tit

C., dA

ao

*. a.le

* *d *"

* 0. , d _

4 A _..

_

A.

i rttit

i(e

A

5

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Con

cent

ratio

n/B

read

th

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1213

1417

1819

2021

2223

2425

2627

2829

301

23

45

67

89

1011

1516

1 2

____

3

-It

d*a

-** i

* if**...

_ * a

d*

1.*

g4

r*i it

4. d* d

*

*

4* 4-

_.. 5

* n

li*

* __I

n. At a

d

4'

KE

Y: R

esea

rche

r

d T

each

erR

ater

A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

- R

esea

rche

rd

Tea

cher

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y: R

esea

rche

r

o T

each

erR

ater

A

* R

ater

B

43

Cha

lleng

ing

Supp

ortiv

e

Impe

rson

al

Pers

onal

Sell

AP

PE

ND

IX E

(3)

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Cha

lleng

ing/

Sup

port

ive

Sco

re

Stu

dent

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

1a.

):d _itIt

t1 i r

*'1

%

s * ..,,_

__t_

_.***

*v

d et.,

4**

4*

et

*d Or

t

d arS_

ILS.-.

I * 1*.

* ii_

4 *.2

C. *re *

*IA

-sir

3

rt-*

A d* .4

4..

toe

5I

S

Oth

er

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Impe

rson

al/P

erso

nal

Sco

re

Stu

dent

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

1d

tt

*

_ *

_ h.. *

.4 k -

_ t_ *

._ "

__ ek_ *

___ -;

_ -- v

11% * Thi

sti.* 4' --,1

24

* A** do

445 *

Ton

,,te

ohd

II

5*

**

n*a*

*

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Sel

f-co

ncer

n/O

ther

-con

cern

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

___

2425

2627

2829

301

23

45

67

89

alv

iiA

..

*d *

4* ii-i-r

iit

td -- . -i

,

g.ot

* 4.a " _

I __:. *

._'4

*_

*

_- *

Zr

-

vA

,4t-

4a

4.1

KE

Y:

00R

esea

rche

r

111

Tea

cher

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

0 R

esea

rche

r

Tea

cher

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

_.

_

0.R

esea

rche

r

ItT

each

er

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

Inne

r

Out

er

Spe

akin

g

List

enin

g

APP

EN

DIX

E (

4)

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Inne

r-di

rect

ed/O

uter

-dire

cted

Sco

re

Stu

dent

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

14

...* .

-. *V

ittA 4

2 3A

4es

*

* a

4_

Zit.

*.. d

* . itin

t.

** -

I*4

.. *..

*It

*T

*...

... *

* -- **"

.."*.

"_'t

11*

re d*

5*

Inte

r-ra

ter

Rel

iabi

lity:

Spe

akin

g/Li

sten

ing

Sco

re

Stu

dent

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2728

2930

12

34

56

78

910

1112

2526

IV _V

**r

-t;$

* -r**_

-14

4

t *tit

- *of* -..1

.! *

Itt_ r s_ ;7

. .

._. rf

i"4 _v _.

..4*

___ 4.ri d

ti.. I

4 ±ic

t...

14 ;to,

2--

--j 4

4i_

et

4e

-4 *5

KE

Y:

0 R

esea

rche

r*

Tea

cher

Rat

er A

* R

ater

B

KE

Y:

soR

esea

rche

r

* T

each

erR

ater

A

* R

ater

B

47

APPENDIX F

MEAN SCORE CONTINUUM

ALTERNATIVE

3.6813.886

TRADITIONAL

2.273

SCORE

STUDENT

efr2.636

9

2.818

2.8

WIM643.227 3.204 3.181

43

GENDER

El FEMALE

fl MALE

3 431

3.400

3.363 26

3.311

3 500

2

APPENDIX F (2)

ALTERNATIVE TRADITIONAL

36363.681

3.8863. 2.273

.20 , 11 - 9 r2.636

SCORE

STUDENT

3 522 23 30: 2.704

29

26

2 704

2.818

2.840

3.2951S

193 272

273.250

3.250

18

16

3 250

hi$3.0903.113

3.068

3.227 3.204

4:)

3.181

2.841

2.841

2.864

3.045

ETHNICITY

AFRICAN

El ASIAN

HISPANIC

fl EUROPEAN

3.522

3.500

26

3.431

3.400

3.636

APPENDIX F (3)

ALTERNATIVE

23

TRADITIONAL

3.681

20

3.886

%

q'1'1.1/,, ,4,%,,

,',..,,Ie',%e%

2.273

92

30

636

SCORE

STUDENT

2 704

,..,.. .

e

a

a: 142

24',

818

2.840

3 .363 : is

3.311 3 . . ./.1.1./.'./."00/ 00

`iii% %NlN %/ %%0% % 1.e.e%/%0050%Cs#4.0eeefee3.295

%

193.272

27

//0

1

eee

I

N.

e

0

%

%

0 0

3.250

3.250

18

10

12

3.250

% %

C%5,/,,0%,3.090

3.113

3.068

2.841

2.841

2.864

3.045

3.227 3.204

)

3.181

ACHIEVEMENT

ABOVE AVERAGE TO HIGH

AVERAGE

LOW TO BELOW AVERAGE

APPENDIX F (4)

ALTERNATIVE TRADITIONAL

SCORE

3.8863.681

3.2.273

STUDENT

3.311

3.295

3.272

3.2273.204

5i

3.181

APPENDIX F (5)

ESL STUDENTS

ESL STUDENT

NOT AN ESL STUDENT

3.6362.835

20

3.522 23 30 2.704

3.272 3.045

3.250 3.068

3.250 3.090

3.250 3.113

STUDENT

3.2273.204

52

3.181

-ur

TABLE1

Correlations (Spearman rho) between dependent and independent variables

significant at p <.01 level significant at p <.05 level

Category Gender Ethnicity Academic Achievement

Overall mean score .4740Goal oriented/Process oriented

Didactism/ Discovery .4829 .- :4085 -:.Rational/Intuitive .3784 .6069Separate/Related .5225 .4674Exclusion/Inclusion

Concentration /Breadth

Challenging/Supportive .5273Impersonal/PersonalSelf - concern /Other-concern .4425Inner-directed/Outer-directed .6660Speaking/ Listening

TABLE 2

Correlations (Spearman rho) among dependent variables

significant at p <.01 level significant at p < .05 level

Category

Coal or DidactismorDiscovery

RationalorIntuitive

SeparateorRelated

ExclusionorInclusion

Concen-tration orBreadth

Challen-ging orSupportive

Imper-sonal orPersonal

Self orOtherConcern

Inner orOuterDirected

SpeakingorListening

Pi messOriented

Overallmean sore , .8843 .4820 .7057 .3745?

-,.6153 .4073, ..

Goal oriented orProcess orientedDidactism orDiscovery -.4075 .5135 .3752 -3075 -.5793

Rational/Intuitive .4891 -1669 .7430

Separate/Related .7300 .3896 =.4160 -.4686

Exclusion/Inclusion 4356

, .

4425Concentration/Breadth -.5901

Challenging/Supportive .5544Impersonal/Personal 4284Self-concern/Other-concern -.3645Inner-directed/Outer-directedSpeaking/Listening

54